The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1887-11-08
PECULIAR LAW.

the motion of the government III the
suit against the Mormon Churchfor the
appointment of a receiver to take pos
session of the church property, the Su-
preme Court lays great stress on the
restrictions placed on the Territorial
Assembly in the Organic Act, and also
on the power of Congress to legislate
for the Territory and the right of the
former to pass upon the laws enacted
by the local Legislature. In fact, the
opinion unfolding the constitutionality
of the act under which the suit was
brought is based on this supreme and
supervisory power of Congress.
It has been SO often assumed and as
serted that it is we'll established that
Congress has the right to legislate for
the Territories. The proposition is no
longer disputed by anybody at all famll-
lar with the matter or who has read the
opinions of the national Supreme Court.
1t is equally well understood that the
law-making power delegated to the
Territorial Legislatures, is restricted,
and that all laws passed by the Terri
torial Assemblies must be submitted to
Congress for its acceptance or disap-
proval, in the latter event the act to be
null and void. Nobody denies that
Congress has the power not only to leg
islste directly for Territory, but to
Rbrogate laws enacted by the Territorial
Legislature. But the possession
of this power does not make
an unconstitutional act passed by
Congress for Territory valid,
nor does it give Congress the right
TO ,.invalidate the obligations of con-
tracts and confscate and escheat pro-
perty acquired and held under valid
act by the Legislature. The contention
of the defendant Church was not that
Congress could not abrogate its charter,
which was the act of the Territorial
Legislature, but that having declared
void by disapproVal or by special en-
actment. the charter, Congress itself
exhausted its auth ority and power as
Iations and performances of the Church
while the charter possessed the
force of valid statute. The argument |
on this point-and 1t was convincing |
one to all legal minds-of the defendant
was that the Congressional law was I'M
constitutional, in so far as it presumed |
to seize and dispose of property |
which had been acquired lawfully, |
and to invslidate the obligations
of contracts legally entered into. The
argument of the Court-the opinion is |
little else than an argument for the |
plaintiff is that as Congress had the !
right to disapprove and declare void |
the acts of the Territorial Legislature
the corporation must haYe accepted the
charter with that knowledge and |
understanding, and must now suffer
the consequences of the disspproval |
and voiding, not as to the future,
but for the past. If this is good |
Law then the most dangerous
thing q corporation can have is char
ter granted or conferred by Terrific
rial Legislature. The Court, in effect. |
says that Congress can now dec lare in
valid the charter granted by Terrific
rial Legislature at any time in the past,
and make unlawful all the acts of the |
corporation. though Congress has
known Of the existence and operation |
of the association for years, and has
never disapproved its charter. If the
law here laid down shall be held to |
be valid, a corporation organized |
under Territorial statute, or
holding a Territorial charter, will
be in danger if it does any,
thing but wear out the term of its
existence in waiting to see if Congress
viii 60 anything with it. Some of the
richest and most far-reaching corpora
tions, in their operations, in the
United States are acting under
charters from Territorial Legis-
IatHres. They have been in business for
"a generation, and their operations have
extended to millions of dollars in
value and to hundreds of thousands OF
people. Would our Supreme Court say
that the Congress OF the United States
eould step in now, and, multiplying these
charters, inflict the penalty of con6sca-
lion of property upon the members of
the interpretations? That is precisely
what the Court says in this opinion, and
II is acting in harmony with its incon-
eistent finding in the appointment of a
receiver of the church property.
There are several remarkable features
BIZ this decision, which reads more like
omg Anti Mormon newspaper discus
] ion than the opinion of q Judicial tri-
bunal; but reference to one of these fea
ures viii be sufficient for one day.